Jon Glik’s fiddle playing can be heard on some of my favorite records. Anyone who knows me, knows I’m a huge Del McCoury fan. Don’t Stop The Music may be my all time favorite McCoury album, and Glik’s fiddle plays an important roll in the band’s sound on that recording.

Over the years Jon has recorded with a number of other bluegrass legends including David Grisman, Frank Wakefield, Peter Rowan, the Forbes Family, Dave Evans, Paul Adkins, Walter Hensley, Bob and Danny Paisley, and more.

Sadly, Jon is now in the hospital due to liver failure. This makes the third time this year he has been hospitalized. Like many other musicians, Jon does not health insurance and is faced with rising medial bills. In the midst of this, he is in need of a liver transplant if he is to survive.

The bluegrass community is coming together in an effort to assist this beloved fiddle player. A fund has been started to raise money for the transplant and to help offset his medical expenses.

Several things are being done to raise money for the fund.

A benefit concert is being held on Friday, October 19, from 7:00-11:00 PM. The concert takes place at The Arcadia Fire Hall, in Arcadia, MD. Admission is $35 at the door. Performers include The Del McCoury Band, David Grisman, David Grier, and The Forbes Family.

Eastman Strings has kindly donated a beautiful 904 D Mandolin to be raffled off at the concert, with all proceeds going directly to Jon’s medical fund.

James Reams, Walter Hensley & The Barons of Bluegrass are donating all proceeds (during the month of October) from the sale of the CD Wild Card, featuring Jon Glik on fiddle, to Jon’s medical fund. To order the CD, they ask that you mail a check for $15, made out to Jon Glik Medical Fund, to Mountain Redbird Music, 565 9th Street, Brooklyn, NY 11215. They ask that you also include $1 in cash or postage stamps to cover shipping costs.

You may also contribute directly to the fund by sending a check to Jon’s sister, Barbara Glik. Again, the check should be made out to Jon Glik Medical Fund, and mailed to:

Barbara Glik
P.O. Box 4005
Annapolis, MD 21403

Let’s all pull together and help one of our own in his time of need.

One of the endearing aspects of bluegrass music is the way that we treat our early pioneers. Instead of being shuffled to the sidelines, the founders of our music are celebrated by current bluegrass artists, and the larger audience generally welcomes the opportunity to show their appreciation for the contributions they have made.

A great example will be on display at next weekend’s Hardly Strictly Bluegrass festival in San Francisco, CA. When The David Grisman Experience performs on this free, 3 day festival on October 7 in Golden Gate Park, David will welcome Curly Seckler to join him on stage.

Curly had a hand in shaping the way bluegrass tenor is sung, and is widely regarded as being as influential in the earliest days as Bill Monroe or Ralph Stanley. Not only did he record more than 100 tracks with Flatt & Scruggs during his 12 years with the band, he also wrote several of their most memorable songs, like No Mother Or Dad and That Old Book of Mine.

Curly performed as a member of Lester Flatt and The Nashville Grass from 1973 until Lester’s passing in ‘79, and then fronted the band himself up to his retirement in 1994. He didn’t retire completely, however, and marked the year 2004 – his 70th in bluegrass music – by recording a total of 28 tracks, released as two CDs on the Copper Creek label (hear audio samples in iTunes).

Later that same year, he was inducted into the IBMA Hall of Honor, and gave a memorable performance at the 2004 awards show.

You can find more details about the Hardly Strictly Bluegrass festival on their web site. Austin City Limits will be filming at the festival, and we sure hope that Curly will make the cut and appear when the footage is aired.

Three cheers for Curly Seckler – and for David Grisman as well!

We recently told you about the law suit filed by David Grisman’s Dawg Music (Acoustic Disc) label against online video sharing site YouTube.com. It appears that’s not the only lawsuit he’s filed recently. He’s also suing Universal Music Group and Warner Music for contracting to sell his music online through digital download services without first consulting him, or paying the expected royalties.

What’s more, he’s extended the suit to include eight online download services which have distributed the music provided to them by Universal and Warner. The eight include Apple’s iTunes, AOL Music Now, Buy.com, Microsoft’s MSN.com, Napster, RealNetworks’ Rhapsody, WalMart.com, and Yahoo Music. He finds them guilty by association. That’s going to be a hard sell in my opinion because these services always pay to the label, who then distributes royalties to the artist. It seems to me his complaint should be with the two labels he signed contracts with to distribute his music.

The filing claims that “irreparable injury” has been done to Dawg Music by this situation and Grisman is seeking $150,000 for every work whose copyright was violated. Taken as a whole and spread across all the defendants, this would equal millions of dollars.

It seems Grisman has a contract with Universal and Warner, but his complaint is that they took on themselves authority that wasn’t granted to them by the contract. I’ve seen some pretty vague wording in some record contracts offered to artists by the labels that would give the label the right to “all future media” or some such. This could be one of the cases. I think Grisman needs to focus on his contract with the labels in question. I really don’t think he has any case against the online retail outlets.

In the first case I’m aware of involving a bluegrass artist, mandolinist David Grisman has filed suit against online video sharing website, YouTube. From large media conglomerates such as Viacom to soccer leagues, many have filed similar suits since Google’s recent acquisition of YouTube.

Grisman’s lawsuit seeks an unspecified amount of cash for copyright infringement, as well as a court order forcing YouTube to comply with copyright laws in the future. Grisman and company seek to pursue the case not only for themselves, but also for other independent musicians and publishers.

YouTube’s response to such cases has historically been that they always comply with requests to remove unauthorized material when asked to do so by the copyright owners, and are therefore protected under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

The suit was filed May 10, 2007 in a San Francisco federal court.

Some have pointed out the irony of someone who has always encouraged fans to bootleg his live performances now suing a video sharing site, but Grisman draws a distinction between fan bootlegs and “Google distribution.” Personally I don’t see much difference myself, since the fan bootlegs invariably end up online where they are distributed worldwide in the same way that YouTube clips are. But ultimately, as a copyright owner, it’s his right to decide when and where to allow use of his copyrighted works. But, you might ask, was a lawsuit really necessary?

Here’s part of the text from the suit.

they [Google and YouTube] deliberately refuse to take meaningful steps to deter the rampant infringing activity readily apparent on YouTube which would, in turn, have a negative impact on the advertising and other reviews and other value achieved through the large volume of traffic on the YouTube Web site.

Essentially the difference, as Grisman and company seem to be drawing it, is that YouTube, and by extension Google, is making money on the site where fans trading bootlegs aren’t. At least that’s the thought process, and I can go along with that. If he’s willing to give away, so to speak, his copyright by allowing fans to tape, that is different from someone seeking to monazite his copyrights without his consent.

I understand how he can be ok with live show taping, but not ok with YouTube video sharing. Other copyright owners might be ok with it though (I know some who are). So why try to take that choice away by forcing YouTube into a business model that wouldn’t allow it? Why not just ask YouTube to remove your works and, assuming they do, leave it at that?